Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:It didn't matter whether it was last year or ne (Score 5, Insightful) 306

Now that addresses have run out, they have become a valuable resource for the ISPs that own them. If those ISPs implement IPv6 then there will be no shortage of addresses, and they will lose all their value.

So the monopolist ISPs will now do everything in their power to prevent IPv6 from being adopted.

Comment Re:ISPs taking IPs back from customers (Score 1) 574

... extra fee for a static IP address

Which is why they don't want to give you IPV6. Given a choice between an artificial scarcity of IP addresses that allows them to change extra, and an investment in a solution that will eventually make the scarcity go away, it's fairly obvious which the ISPs are going to choose.

Comment Re:no different elsewhere (Score 1) 555

Perhaps the people commenting on the US border situation are Europeans, who are used to crossing the borders between the various European countries, where nothing like this happens.

Indeed, I remember travelling through the "Iron Curtain" in my youth with no thought that anything like this might occur to me.

Comment Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. (Score 4, Insightful) 148

The filtering allegedly works by checking every URL that you visit for porn (I've no idea how); if porn is found, not only are you blocked from seeing the URL, but it is also added to a blacklist.

The point of the article is that this checking is being done for everyone, even if they don't want filtering. So the ISP is, in effect, compiling a list of the URLs visited by their customers who do not want to be filtered.

And that list is being compiled on hardware that is alleged to be under the control of a foreign, potentially hostile, government.

Comment Re:Daily Mail fail (Score 4, Insightful) 547

IANAL, but: intent may be irrelevant in this case. The current fashion is to make so-called "strict liability" laws, especially in the area of "child protection". For example, in the UK, if there are child-porn pictures on your computer, then you are guily of an offence, regardless of how they got there. I don't know, but the same may apply in this case.

The beauty of this is that it allows the police to arrest people like this unfortunate person and put them in jail without all the tedious arguments about whether they intended do harm or whether it was an accident. A jury will be told "if he sent the message then he is guilty, even if it was a mistake".

Indeed, it is even possible for a policeman to force someone to do something against their will, and then arrest them for it. Google the case of "Winzar (1983)" if you don't believe me.

Comment Re:Who cares (Score 1) 399

To apply the fix, everyone involved must cooperate and spend a lot of money upgrading.

The alternative is to carry without ipv6: this will create an artificial scarcity of ipv4 addresses. They will become more and more valuable, so existing businesses will be able to make more and more money renting them out: as no more are available, nobody else will be able to join the cartel to get a slice of the pie.

So: the choice is: spend a lot of money on ipv6 now to help the customer, or screw the customer over and head towards a cartel-dominated future. Surely ipv6 is doomed.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.